Puppycide

Heads are going to roll!

 

Bolded mine, in both quotes

Well, somebody's lying, and from the two "eyewitness" accounts it sure doesn't appear to be a case of "mistaken" viewing.

I just hope that whichever IS lying, gets their just desserts!

 

It does seem like he could have asked to have the dogs in. But not all cops even carry mace. One side is definately lieing.

But it has got to be awfully hard for a cop to approach an armed robbery suspect. I will always side with them, until their guilt is proved. Or proven.

 

My dog was trained to protect his family and his home. If someone came to our front door, the dog barked to let us know someone was coming.

What right did this man have to shoot the dog on the owner's property? Where does it stop? Are they allowed to come in my house and shoot my dog next?

If he'd have done that on my property, he'd have had to shoot me next because I'd have gone ballistic. He had no right to do what he did; I don't care if the dog was standing and growling and barking or whatever.

Ask the owner to put the dog in the house before you decide to trespass on their property.

This man is too trigger happy and should be removed from the force. And if it was me, I'd sue the pants off of him.

Outrageous.

 

Not sure if anyone remembers this or not but the same thing happened a few years ago when a family traveling on the interstate was pulled over and a policeman shot the family dog when it jumped out of the car into the grass. The kicker... it was all caught on video (which I viewed several times)! You could see the dog wagging it's tail right before it was shot. (You can read one account of it http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819436/posts ) Trigger happy cop in that case and it sounds like another trigger happy cop that MURDERED this poor family dog as well. I hope justice is served!

 

She was alone with her two year old son. She was talking to one investigator and the second approached the dogs. That stupid deputy should be fired.

 

Let's wait until a jury speaks. We're giving Gitmo terrorists more due process than our own law enforcement. Innocent, until proven guilty, folks. If it is shown that he was out of line, then I'm all for the above punishments.

 

I don't know, but something doesn't ring right with the lady's story. If they're after a bank robbery suspect, which should be deemed a dangerous individual, SOP dictates the other deputy watch the back of the deputy speaking with the woman, not moving around approaching dogs. But what do I know, eh ? can't even reach over and tie my shoelaces now...belly's blocking my view.

 

There is nothing in the op conclusive as to what actually happened. She said one thing the officer said another. Who do you believe?

 

Her word against his. Who to believe?

 

I said before, how about we wait for a jury before we go awarding punitive damages.

 

After reading the article it wasn't clear on this issue. It seemed to present the womans view more than any other.

 

Putting on the uniform knowing you will be blamed first, and supported last, is extreme good will.

 

Just like the troops.